Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

Sir Cliff Richard is demanding the BBC pay for his autobiography which was shelved after they broadcast footage of police searching his home in connection with allegations of a historic sexual offence.

The 77-year-old singer is suing for damages that could run into millions of pounds claiming that the corporation “shattered” his reputation when they named him as being under investigation for an alleged sex offence involving a minor dating back to 1985.

As the trial at the High Court began, it emerged that if he wins he will seek £278,261 for legal costs, £108,500 for PR fees and an undisclosed sum for the “substantial non-recoverable advance” which had been agreed for his autobiography which had been due to be published in late 2015.

His lawyers say that the book My Life, My Way is “no longer viable” and he is entitled to aggravated damages because the BBC have “rubbed salt in the wound” by refusing to apologise to him..

The legal fees have not been settled yet but the police have given £300,000 up front and note that in June 2017, just after they settled their case, Sir Cliff’s costs against both defendants were already in excess of £1million.

Sir Cliff Richard arrives at the Rolls Building of the High Court in London on Thursday morningCredit:
Ben Cawthra/LNP

Justin Rushbrooke QC said: “When you look at the profound and long lasting impact it has had on Sir Cliff’s life it does call for an award at the top end of the scale.”

He said that the BBC had reported the search in the most “prominent and sensational way” simply because they were desperate for the “scoop”, pointing that staff had talked about getting the “money shots” of police going into his home.

Their North of England reporter Dan Johnson had also told bosses that he had police “over the barrel” as he had a tip that Sir Cliff was being investigated.

The BBC deny invasion of privacy and breach of the Data Protection Act, arguing that the claim, the first of its kind, is an affront to the principles of freedom of speech and that thet accurately reported a story which was “a matter of high public interest”.

Sir Cliff, who sat quietly behind his legal team throughout proceedings wearing a purple pin stripe suit, was described by his QC as a man who “needs no introduction” as he “is one of the most distinguished entertainers this country has even known”.

But in August 2014, whilst he was at his home in Portugal, he found his life falling apart. He was told that he was being investigated for an alleged sex offence and then discovered that he would be named in connection with the investigation by the BBC.

"It is hard to encapsulate in words the sense of panic and powerlessness that must have been induced in him on 14 August 2014 when he realised that the BBC were relaying instantaneously and indiscriminately around the world highly sensitive and damaging information concerning himself - all based upon an allegation of serious criminal conduct which he knew to be entirely false," Mr Rushbrooke said.

The BBC have admitted that Mr Johnson got the tip about the investigation from a source in the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Yewtree and he then took it South Yorkshire Police, who met with him and agreed to keep him updated if he held off publishing.

Mr Johnson told police that he had heard that Sir Cliff been named on a list of influential people who had visited Elm Guest House, the court heard, where it was alleged that there had been sexual abuse and grooming of children at parties held in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The Metropolitan Police investigated the allegations generally and found no evidence of them and Sir Cliff’s legal team said that he “never went to Elm Guest house”.

After the meeting with officers Mr Johnson emailed his line manager to say that he had them “over a barrel”.

In the days after the story was broadcast Gary Smith, then head of Home News, emailed Declan Wilson, Mr Johnson’s line manager, noting that there were “some issues” about how the information had been obtained from South Yorkshire Police.

Jonathan Munro, the BBC's head of newsgathering, outside the courtCredit:
Yui Mok/PA

He wrote: “He seems to have been nailing them to a wall, saying if they didn’t give him a guarantee of an exclusive tip off on the search operation, he’d broadcast the story in advance (which of course we would never have done). One part of me is hugely impressed with his tactics. But it wouldn’t look pretty if it came out.”

The BBC deny the police’s claim that they “pressurised” them into handing over the information.

The day before officers searched Sir Cliff’s penthouse apartment in Sunningdale, Berks, they phoned the BBC to tell them it would take place, allowing them to have satellite trucks, reporters and helicopters in place.

Internal emails show that it was discussed as a “monster story” and in what was described by Mr Rushbrooke as a “first in TV history”, the TV crews were already there when police arrived.

Sir Cliff said he was given less than 2 hours to respond before they named him on the 1 o’clock news.

As footage of the BBC coverage was played to London’s High Court Sir Cliff looked tearful, closing his eyes and biting his thumb and barely glancing at the TV as he details of the allegations relating to a young boy aged under 16 at the time.

After news of the search was broadcast four other people came forward to make allegations, though none were proven and it was announced he would face no charges in June 2016.

Mr Rushbrooke QC said:”He fears that the effects of what the BBC did are such that his dignity and his standing have been damaged forever and no amount of damages can undo that, but it will afford him some comfort to know that by bringing this action he can ensure that what happened to him never happens to anyone else again.”

The BBC pointed out that police have been executing search warrants, and the press reporting on them, since the 19th Century and Parliament had never put in place any laws to prevent them doing so leading to a "general consensus" that it was in the public interest.

“Sir Cliff’s case against the BBC therefore raises issues of great, arguable of constitutional, importance for freedom of press in this country,” Gavin Millar QC, representing the corporation, says in legal documents.

They state that what was published was both accurate and a legitimate matter of public interest, adding: “There is not, and has never been, any statutory right to anonymity in these circumstances.”

The police are claiming that the BBC should make a contribution toward their payout, given that they were the ones who published, whilst the BBC claim that South Yorkshire Police should pay all damages as they voluntarily gave them information knowing what it would be used for.

Sir Cliff - who was supported at court by Gloria Hunniford and Fr John McElynn, the American former missionary he lives with and describes as his "companion" - is due to give evidence on Friday.